And if it means scrapping air and land nuclear weapon delivery
systems to replace the fleet, then so be it, according to a study
by the Cato Institute, a public policy think tank that conducts
independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy
issues.

The study underscores what it considers the importance of the
replacement fleet as a deterrent to nuclear war.

The Navy's plan to build 12 of the replacement submarines,
estimated to cost as much as $100 billion, will put a large dent
in its shipbuilding budget.

The study suggests the Pentagon may have to bend the rules to
fund the program and suggests it should consider different
alternatives.

It suggests a simple, but potentially controversial solution.

"Eliminating the other two legs of the nuclear triad --
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, and nuclear
bombers -- would save American taxpayers around $20 billion a
year," the study said. "Part of the savings could be put toward
replacing the Ohio-class subs."

Analysts agree the Trident submarine fleet is the most survivable
leg of the nuclear triad. In fact, the submarines by themselves
are a more powerful nuclear war deterrent than any possessed by
nearly every other nation.

"Russia retains a relatively large arsenal, but no other country
is capable of deploying more than a few hundred nuclear
warheads," according to the study. "A single Ohio-class submarine
can carry up to 192."

The Navy's 14 Ohio-class submarines are capable of carrying 24
nuclear ballistic missiles and each missile can carry up to six
warheads. The D-5 missile has a range of about 7,000 miles,
allowing it to strike anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes.

The missiles are believed to be as accurate as land-based ICBMs
and are "far superior as a delivery vehicle than bomber
aircraft," the study said.

"Given their stealth and survivability, SSBNs represent a secure
second-strike force on their own," the study said. "No other
state now threatens America's SSBN fleet."

The institute has an answer for those who believe all three
delivery systems are necessary.

"The reliance on three nuclear delivery systems is a relic of
Cold War bureaucratic politics, not the product of strategic
calculation," the study said. "A submarine-based monad is more
than sufficient for America's deterrence needs, and would be
considerably less expensive to modernize and maintain than the
current force. The Navy would not have to skirt the law in a
desperate bid to shake additional money from American taxpayers
if the Obama administration shed its attachment to the nuclear
triad."

Sheila McNeill, president of the Camden Partnership and former
national president of the Navy League, said she is aware of the
study but cannot comment. She said other military officials will
also decline comment.

But she said the issue will be discussed sometime in the near
future.

"We are working on a conference that will educate our leadership
on each leg of the triad," she said.